BONES, FOSSILS, AND DATING METHODS
THE 'EVIDENCE'
After disproving evolution from two different perspectives, it is not really that important to even consider the "evidence" which scientists rally in support of the theory. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong, cannot stand up in face of irrefutable proof to the contrary. And circumstantial evidence -- of a rather flimsy variety, I might add -- is all scientists have gathered to this date. Thus, dismantling the "evidence" at this point becomes more of an option rather than a necessity. With this in mind, I would like to briefly touch on some of the so- called "evidence."
RADIOCARBON DATING
Radiocarbon dating is a commonly used method to determine the age of archaeological finds. The process, sometimes referred to as "radiocarbon reading," involves measuring carbon decay.
Radiocarbon dating is basically this: a radioactive isotope of carbon, C-14, is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. As a result, all living organisms absorb an equilibrium concentration of radioactive carbon. When organisms die, C-14 decays and is not replaced. Since we know the concentration of radioactive carbon the organism had when it was alive, and we also know that it takes about 5,600 years for half of that C-14 to decay, and another 5,600 years for half of what's left to decay, and so on, by measuring the remaining concentration of radiocarbon we can tell how long ago an organism died.
One obvious flaw in this technique is that we don't really know the level of radiocarbon concentration acquired by an organism which lived before such recorded history. Scientists make a bold assumption that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive material -- carbon or any other element -- being measured has not changed since the organism's death. In addition, scientists make the assumption that the element's rate of decay has not changed since that time. Are these valid assumptions?
After everything scientists have told us, how can they make such assumptions? On one hand, we're being told that the universe has undergone drastic changes since its formation. One moment before the big bang, the universe was nothing like one moment after the big bang. Gas clouds in space have condensed and turned into stars and planets. Moons have formed around some planets. Some planets have undergone evolutionary changes even after formation. Some stars have collapsed into neutron stars, others into black holes. Our universe has seen more changes in those past alleged ten billion years than the fitting room of a busy tailor.
Now, on the other hand, we're being told in effect, "Sure everything changed, but not radioactive bombardment and its rate of decay -- they have remained at the same level for billions of years." It's almost as if nature knew that some day archaeologists would have to find fossils which appear to be billions of years old to stay in business.
How does one explain the notion that everything in the universe has undergone drastic changes for billions of years except earth's radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, which happen to be crucial and integral parts of any attempt to substantiate evolution? "Nature" owed Charles Darwin a favor?
PROVEN TO FLUCTUATE
The fact is, radiocarbon concentrations have been proven to fluctuate. One of the oldest known living things on earth today is Methuselah, a bristlecone pine tree in California estimated to be about 4,600 years old. Another bristlecone pine believed to be older than Methuselah was cut down for scientific research. Comparing radiocarbon readings with the natural time clock of the tree's year by year rings, showed the radiocarbon dating system to be inaccurate. This inaccuracy showed up in a time period which, by astronomical standards, was only yesterday. Simply extrapolating this known range of inaccuracy over billions of years will show radiocarbon reading to be far less reliable than what scientists would like to believe. Then, taking into consideration that radiocarbon inconsistencies have shown up in such a relatively short period of time, who's to say that the rate of today's radioactive bombardment is not totally out of whack with what it was billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago.
Consequently, a fossil which an archeologist finds to be billions of years old by radioactive dating may in fact be no more than several thousand years old. What's more, an organism could conceivably seem to be, by today's assumptions of yesteryear's radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, thousands or even millions of years old only days or months after its death.
ANOTHER DATING SYSTEM
There is another scientific dating system besides the radioactive method. This one analyzes the structural changes in a body's amino acids after death. The same human fossils were analyzed using this method and also using the radioactive method. The two dating systems showed discrepancies between 39,000 and 59,000 years. The proponents of each of the two dating methods argued that the other one was wrong. Obviously, one of these "scientific" methods must be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the other one? The other one doesn't exactly sound right beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, to find out how long ago an organism died, you might be better off using an old and far more reliable dating method -- a seance in which you conjure up an organism's spirit and simply request the precise date of demise. This may not sound terribly scientific, but you meet some very interesting (living) people at seances.
BRITTLE BONES AND FUZZY FOSSILS
Materials dated in support of evolution quite often turn out to be a bigger farce than the dating methods themselves. Bone and fossil records maintained by paleontologists contain so many gaps and discrepancies -- which of course is not surprising since the events they are supposed to depict could never have occurred -- that they suggest a history of evolution in much the same way that a worm's cell suggests the early stages of a train window. The "proofs" seem to get lost in the gaps, and the "logical" deductions attempting to bridge these gaps are as brittle as the bones. Strangely, the only ones who seem to "understand" how all the pieces fit together are the ones who were totally convinced of the "truth" long before the "proofs" were ever found.
The only way bones and fossils could be taken seriously is if profuse quantities of intermediate species linking other species in an evolutionary chain were found. That is, not just many members of one intermediate species -- that would only indicate that a species existed which was simply similar to two other species. And not just isolated members of several intermediate species -- that would only indicate that some species occasionally produced deformed members. But many intermediate species and many of their members, showing an unmistakable transformation of one species into another. As it stands, however, not only are there no profuse quantities of many intermediate species, but there are no profuse quantities of even one intermediate species. What archaeologists have are the kinds of isolated samples of bones and fossils which must be interpreted and "given meaning;" the findings by no means speak for themselves. The "scientific" method of interpreting bones and fossils appears to be somewhat similar to interpreting the ink blots of psychologists, in the sense that what you see depends a great deal on who you are and the particular inclination of your imaginative faculties. Along these lines, if you discovered a thin string buried together with some old chicken bones, for example, you could, if you tried hard enough, interpret it to mean that prehistoric chickens had teeth because they obviously used dental floss. The fact that no teeth were found would only mean that a "minor" missing link still remained to be found in this otherwise solid theory.
What the "science" of interpreting bones and fossils pretty much boils down to is a game in which any interpretation is correct as long as it cannot be disproven. Proving the interpretation doesn't seem to be part of the game. And for very good reason. The interpretation cannot be proven for the same reason that it cannot be disproven -- bone and fossil records are grossly deficient of cold, hard facts.
COMMON TRAITS
The above two topics -- dating methods and archaeological records -- have one thing in common: as they stand, neither one proves or disproves the theory of evolution. And, as limited as these branches of science seem to be in their ability to uncover strong leads in reconstructing past events, I find it unlikely that either one will change drastically as relates to evolution in the foreseeable future. I therefore did not find it appropriate to spend much time on these topics when in the best case they lead in circles.
Ironically, when it comes to trying to substantiate evolution, it is archaeological discoveries which evolutionists harp on the most. Perhaps they do this for the same reason that I cover it only briefly -- because it leads nowhere, pro or con. And if you're trying to avoid being disproven, what safer ground is there to tread upon?
Furthermore, even if profuse quantities of many intermediate species did exist, which of course they do not, they still could not stand up in face of the case built against evolution in the previous chapters on genetics and space exploration. The genetic impossibility of evolution and the fact that there is no extraterrestrial life would necessitate another interpretation of such archaeological findings. Such findings could by no means prove that evolution is genetically possible, when modern science shows it is not. And such findings could not suggest that there must be life elsewhere in space, when space exploration shows there is none. Consequently, even if such archaeological discoveries did exist, they still would not come close to being a "formidable opponent" of genetics and space exploration -- with genetics and space exploration on one side and such archaeological findings on the other side, the archaeological findings would have to give way. Needless to say, as far as present archaeological findings go, they couldn't be worse off if they were still buried deep in the ground.
THE 'EVIDENCE'
After disproving evolution from two different perspectives, it is not really that important to even consider the "evidence" which scientists rally in support of the theory. Circumstantial evidence, no matter how strong, cannot stand up in face of irrefutable proof to the contrary. And circumstantial evidence -- of a rather flimsy variety, I might add -- is all scientists have gathered to this date. Thus, dismantling the "evidence" at this point becomes more of an option rather than a necessity. With this in mind, I would like to briefly touch on some of the so- called "evidence."
RADIOCARBON DATING
Radiocarbon dating is a commonly used method to determine the age of archaeological finds. The process, sometimes referred to as "radiocarbon reading," involves measuring carbon decay.
Radiocarbon dating is basically this: a radioactive isotope of carbon, C-14, is formed in the atmosphere by cosmic rays. As a result, all living organisms absorb an equilibrium concentration of radioactive carbon. When organisms die, C-14 decays and is not replaced. Since we know the concentration of radioactive carbon the organism had when it was alive, and we also know that it takes about 5,600 years for half of that C-14 to decay, and another 5,600 years for half of what's left to decay, and so on, by measuring the remaining concentration of radiocarbon we can tell how long ago an organism died.
One obvious flaw in this technique is that we don't really know the level of radiocarbon concentration acquired by an organism which lived before such recorded history. Scientists make a bold assumption that the atmospheric concentration of the radioactive material -- carbon or any other element -- being measured has not changed since the organism's death. In addition, scientists make the assumption that the element's rate of decay has not changed since that time. Are these valid assumptions?
After everything scientists have told us, how can they make such assumptions? On one hand, we're being told that the universe has undergone drastic changes since its formation. One moment before the big bang, the universe was nothing like one moment after the big bang. Gas clouds in space have condensed and turned into stars and planets. Moons have formed around some planets. Some planets have undergone evolutionary changes even after formation. Some stars have collapsed into neutron stars, others into black holes. Our universe has seen more changes in those past alleged ten billion years than the fitting room of a busy tailor.
Now, on the other hand, we're being told in effect, "Sure everything changed, but not radioactive bombardment and its rate of decay -- they have remained at the same level for billions of years." It's almost as if nature knew that some day archaeologists would have to find fossils which appear to be billions of years old to stay in business.
How does one explain the notion that everything in the universe has undergone drastic changes for billions of years except earth's radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, which happen to be crucial and integral parts of any attempt to substantiate evolution? "Nature" owed Charles Darwin a favor?
PROVEN TO FLUCTUATE
The fact is, radiocarbon concentrations have been proven to fluctuate. One of the oldest known living things on earth today is Methuselah, a bristlecone pine tree in California estimated to be about 4,600 years old. Another bristlecone pine believed to be older than Methuselah was cut down for scientific research. Comparing radiocarbon readings with the natural time clock of the tree's year by year rings, showed the radiocarbon dating system to be inaccurate. This inaccuracy showed up in a time period which, by astronomical standards, was only yesterday. Simply extrapolating this known range of inaccuracy over billions of years will show radiocarbon reading to be far less reliable than what scientists would like to believe. Then, taking into consideration that radiocarbon inconsistencies have shown up in such a relatively short period of time, who's to say that the rate of today's radioactive bombardment is not totally out of whack with what it was billions, millions, or even thousands of years ago.
Consequently, a fossil which an archeologist finds to be billions of years old by radioactive dating may in fact be no more than several thousand years old. What's more, an organism could conceivably seem to be, by today's assumptions of yesteryear's radioactive bombardment levels and rate of decay, thousands or even millions of years old only days or months after its death.
ANOTHER DATING SYSTEM
There is another scientific dating system besides the radioactive method. This one analyzes the structural changes in a body's amino acids after death. The same human fossils were analyzed using this method and also using the radioactive method. The two dating systems showed discrepancies between 39,000 and 59,000 years. The proponents of each of the two dating methods argued that the other one was wrong. Obviously, one of these "scientific" methods must be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. And the other one? The other one doesn't exactly sound right beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, to find out how long ago an organism died, you might be better off using an old and far more reliable dating method -- a seance in which you conjure up an organism's spirit and simply request the precise date of demise. This may not sound terribly scientific, but you meet some very interesting (living) people at seances.
BRITTLE BONES AND FUZZY FOSSILS
Materials dated in support of evolution quite often turn out to be a bigger farce than the dating methods themselves. Bone and fossil records maintained by paleontologists contain so many gaps and discrepancies -- which of course is not surprising since the events they are supposed to depict could never have occurred -- that they suggest a history of evolution in much the same way that a worm's cell suggests the early stages of a train window. The "proofs" seem to get lost in the gaps, and the "logical" deductions attempting to bridge these gaps are as brittle as the bones. Strangely, the only ones who seem to "understand" how all the pieces fit together are the ones who were totally convinced of the "truth" long before the "proofs" were ever found.
The only way bones and fossils could be taken seriously is if profuse quantities of intermediate species linking other species in an evolutionary chain were found. That is, not just many members of one intermediate species -- that would only indicate that a species existed which was simply similar to two other species. And not just isolated members of several intermediate species -- that would only indicate that some species occasionally produced deformed members. But many intermediate species and many of their members, showing an unmistakable transformation of one species into another. As it stands, however, not only are there no profuse quantities of many intermediate species, but there are no profuse quantities of even one intermediate species. What archaeologists have are the kinds of isolated samples of bones and fossils which must be interpreted and "given meaning;" the findings by no means speak for themselves. The "scientific" method of interpreting bones and fossils appears to be somewhat similar to interpreting the ink blots of psychologists, in the sense that what you see depends a great deal on who you are and the particular inclination of your imaginative faculties. Along these lines, if you discovered a thin string buried together with some old chicken bones, for example, you could, if you tried hard enough, interpret it to mean that prehistoric chickens had teeth because they obviously used dental floss. The fact that no teeth were found would only mean that a "minor" missing link still remained to be found in this otherwise solid theory.
What the "science" of interpreting bones and fossils pretty much boils down to is a game in which any interpretation is correct as long as it cannot be disproven. Proving the interpretation doesn't seem to be part of the game. And for very good reason. The interpretation cannot be proven for the same reason that it cannot be disproven -- bone and fossil records are grossly deficient of cold, hard facts.
COMMON TRAITS
The above two topics -- dating methods and archaeological records -- have one thing in common: as they stand, neither one proves or disproves the theory of evolution. And, as limited as these branches of science seem to be in their ability to uncover strong leads in reconstructing past events, I find it unlikely that either one will change drastically as relates to evolution in the foreseeable future. I therefore did not find it appropriate to spend much time on these topics when in the best case they lead in circles.
Ironically, when it comes to trying to substantiate evolution, it is archaeological discoveries which evolutionists harp on the most. Perhaps they do this for the same reason that I cover it only briefly -- because it leads nowhere, pro or con. And if you're trying to avoid being disproven, what safer ground is there to tread upon?
Furthermore, even if profuse quantities of many intermediate species did exist, which of course they do not, they still could not stand up in face of the case built against evolution in the previous chapters on genetics and space exploration. The genetic impossibility of evolution and the fact that there is no extraterrestrial life would necessitate another interpretation of such archaeological findings. Such findings could by no means prove that evolution is genetically possible, when modern science shows it is not. And such findings could not suggest that there must be life elsewhere in space, when space exploration shows there is none. Consequently, even if such archaeological discoveries did exist, they still would not come close to being a "formidable opponent" of genetics and space exploration -- with genetics and space exploration on one side and such archaeological findings on the other side, the archaeological findings would have to give way. Needless to say, as far as present archaeological findings go, they couldn't be worse off if they were still buried deep in the ground.